Paul S. Page, Zhikui Wei and Nathaniel P. Brooks
Motorcycle helmets have been shown to decrease the incidence and severity of traumatic brain injury due to motorcycle crashes. Despite this proven efficacy, some previous reports and speculation suggest that helmet use is associated with a higher likelihood of cervical spine injury (CSI). In this study, the authors examine 1061 cases of motorcycle crash victims who were treated during a 5-year period at a Level 1 trauma center to investigate the association of helmet use with the incidence and severity of CSI. The authors hypothesized that wearing a motorcycle helmet during a motorcycle crash is not associated with an increased risk of CSI and may provide some protective advantage to the wearer.
The authors performed a retrospective review of all cases in which the patient had been involved in a motorcycle crash and was evaluated at a single Level 1 trauma center in Wisconsin between January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2015. Biometric, clinical, and imaging data were obtained from a trauma registry database. The patients were then divided into 2 distinct groups based on whether or not they were wearing helmets at the time of the accident. Baseline and functional characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The Student t-test was used for continuous variables, and Pearson’s chi-square analysis was used for categorical variables.
In total, 1061 patient charts were examined containing data on 738 unhelmeted (69.6%) and 323 helmeted (30.4%) motorcycle riders. On average, helmeted riders had a much lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.001). Cervical spine injury occurred in 114 unhelmeted riders (15.4%) compared with only 24 helmeted riders (7.4%) (p < 0.001), with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI 1.44–3.61, p = 0.0005). In the unhelmeted group, 10.8% of patients were found to have a cervical spine fracture compared with only 4.6% of patients in the helmeted group (p = 0.001). Additionally, ligamentous injury occurred more frequently in unhelmeted riders (1.9% vs 0.3%, p = 0.04). No difference was found in the occurrence of cervical strain, cord contusion, or nerve root injury (all p > 0.05).
The results of this study demonstrate a statistically significant lower likelihood of suffering a CSI among helmeted motorcyclists. Unhelmeted riders sustained a statistically significant higher number of vertebral fractures and ligamentous injuries. The study findings reported here confirm the authors’ hypothesis that helmet use does not increase the risk of developing a cervical spine fracture and may provide some protective advantage.
Basheal M. Agrawal, Nathaniel P. Brooks and Daniel K. Resnick
Given the pragmatic difficulties in developing randomized controlled trials in patients with disorders of the spine, the Wisconsin Spine Outcome Group has adopted the use of a prospective registry design to perform comparative effectiveness research on treatments for degenerative lumbar disorders. The goal of the Wisconsin Spine Outcome Study–Pilot (WISPOS-P) was to establish a Web-based, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act–compliant registry and to implement a patient registration paradigm that demonstrates at least 80% compliance in collecting pre- and posttreatment data in patients with lumbar disorders, regardless of the treatment they receive. The primary outcome measures were the percentage of patients with lumbar spine disorders who completed a Web-based survey preappointment, and at 1 and 3 months postappointment; the percentage of patients receiving a physician-assigned diagnosis in the registry; and the success of electronic data transition from the Web-based interface to a locally controlled registry.
The WISPOS-P uses a prospective, diagnosis-based registry design. A universally accessible and secure Internet-based data management platform was created that accrues self-entered patient data on validated disability indices, including the visual analog pain scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire. Data were obtained on patients, preappointment and at 1 and 3 months postappointment, regardless of the treatment rendered. A physician-entered diagnosis was assigned to each patient for data stratification.
One hundred patients were invited into the WISPOS-P; 90 patients participated, and 10 withdrew for various reasons. Eighty-eight of 90 patients were assigned a diagnosis by the evaluating physician. Preliminary and qualitative assessment of the data shows that the major difference between patients who withdrew from the study and those who participated was the number of days between study invitation and clinic appointment (median 11 vs 20.5 days, respectively). In evaluating patients by mode of survey completion, the 2 largest groups were those who completed their intake forms electronically before their clinic appointment and those who used the paper format. The median age of patients electronically completing this survey was 14.34 years younger than those using the paper format. A significantly higher proportion of patients who completed their forms electronically had listed an email address. The 3 major diagnoses were disc disease (32 patients), stenosis (24 patients), and nonsurgical pain of spinal origin (14 patients). Patients with stenosis were older than those in the other 2 groups. Patients with nonsurgical pain of spinal origin had lower ODI scores compared with the other 2 groups.
A diagnosis-based registry design is effective in collecting pretreatment data for patients with lumbar disorders. When stratified by diagnosis, comparative effectiveness analyses can be performed to identify optimum treatments for lumbar disorders given individual patient characteristics. The WISPOS-P has established a mechanism and proof of principle for the participation of patients in an outcomes registry.
Ali Aziz-Sultan and Roberto C. Heros
Nathaniel P. Brooks, Aquilla S. Turk, David B. Niemann, Beverly Aagaard-Kienitz, Kari Pulfer and Thomas Cook
There is little evidence addressing whether procedures requiring adjunctive devices lead to an increased frequency of thromboembolic complications. The authors report their experience with 155 aneurysms treated with and without adjunctive devices.
The authors retrospectively reviewed their last 155 aneurysm coil placement procedures. The patients' records were reviewed for the following phenomena: 1) evidence of procedure-related thrombus formation; 2) clinical evidence of stroke; and 3) the presence of acute ischemia in the treated vascular territory on diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging.
Of the 155 aneurysms treated in 132 patients, 66 were treated with coils only, 45 had stent-assisted coil placement, 33 underwent balloon remodeling, and in 11 stents were placed after balloon remodeling. Small DW imaging abnormalities were present in the treated vascular territory in 24% of cases (37 lesions). Specifically, 21 (32%) of 66 lesions in the coil-treated group, 6 (13%) of 45 in the stent-assisted coil treatment group, 8 (24%) of 33 in the balloon remodeling group, and 2 (18%) of 11 in the balloon and stent group showed DW imaging positivity. Furthermore, 25 (68%) of the 37 cases that were positive on DW imaging occurred in patients presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Clinically evident stroke or transient ischemic attack was present in 10 (27%) of 37 cases, with 70% occurring in patients presenting with SAH.
Use of adjunctive devices in treating aneurysms does not appear to increase the frequency of embolic or ischemic events. The presence of DW imaging abnormalities and clinically evident stroke was actually less frequent when adjunctive devices were used and in electively treated cases. This was probably related to perioperative antiplatelet medical management.